Thursday, April 19, 2012

In the case of Jagielski v. MetLife U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab wrote :

“In light of counsel for MetLife’s repeated and flagrant obfuscation, smoke screens and “clever” couching of its statements of fact, it is ironic, to say the very least, that MetLife’s brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment accuses plaintiff repeatedly of “lack of candor and attempts to mislead the Court.” MetLife Brief in Opposition (doc. no. 49) at 8. To the contrary, the Court finds plaintiff’s statements of fact to be professional, fair and straightforward recitations of facts that are supported by the record. The same may not be said about defendant’s Statements of Facts and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Concise Statement of Material Facts." (end of quote)

In the case of Illiena Volynskaya U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote about “other cases in which MetLife has “played with the facts.” (end of quote)

The attorneys at the huge private law firm known as Adams and Reese are part of Metlife’s organized crime and fiduciary breaches because they willfully presented false statements in writing to the U.S. District Court in my case where they wrote :

“Defendant’s deny that they ignored relevant medical evidence, refused to respond to properly submitted communications, improperly delayed consideration of the Plaintiff’s claim, made false statements, or violated the terms of the TMG plans or of ERISA”

The following quotes prove this sentence has many false statements in it and this is another example of a tremendous fiduciary breach the Obama administration is protecting !!

On page 11 of his Order in Spring of 2008 U.S. Magistrate Judge Bryant wrote,

“Metlife’s administration of plaintiff’s claim and appeal is troubling, particularly when compared to the regulations which govern such administration.”

“the record is utterly devoid of any glimmer of recognition by Metlife of plaintiff’s attempt to assert an LTD claim, despite plaintiff’s repeated attempts to ascertain the status of the claim(e.g. AR 10, 11 ,25, 28, 33, 81 )

On page 7 of his report Judge Bryant wrote,

“the record reflects that Plaintiff did not receive timely notice of the initial denial of his STD claim ( AR 8-10); nor of the denial of his administrative appeal, nor of certain documentation upon which the denial was based, in particular the report of independent physician consultant Dr. Greenhood. In addition Metlife failed to make a timely response to several attempts by plaintiff to ascertain the status of his claims.”

On page 9 Judge Bryant wrote,

“The record does not reflect that Metlife, at any point, during the Administrative process, disclosed to plaintiff Dr. Greenhood’s identity as a consulting medical expert or the content of his narrative report, despite Metlife’s apparent reliance on that report (AR 15), verses the restrictions imposed by plaintiff’s treating sources, and despite plaintiff’s repeated requests for same. Metlife apparently even failed to produce this information after issuing its decision on his appeal, when it purported to mail plaintiff “copies of the information which was used to make a decision on your claim.”

On page 10 of his Report Judge Bryant wrote,

“In addition, the “Diary Review – Report” contained in the record reveals that Dr. Greenhood was consulted in connection with the initial determination of plaintiff’s disability claim ( AR 6) as well as the determination on appeal. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the undersigned finds that these violations by Metlife of the claims procedures prescribed by ERISA and its interpretive regulations must in fact be corrected in further administrative proceedings, as further justified below.”

On page 12 Judge Bryant writes,

“Moreover Defendants’ claim that “both the short-term and long-term disability Plans require that a claimant be unable to work” is patently erroneous.”

On Page 16 Judge Bryant writes this about the one claim that Metlife acknowledged and denied :

“However, but for the application of the “Actively at Work” provision, the undersigned would recommend finding the two-page denial decision arbitrary and capricious, inasmuch as it is nearly devoid of any meaningful analysis of the medical evidence and thus fails to reflect any “deliberate, principled reasoning process . . . Glenn, 461 F.3d at 666.”

Honorable Judge Bryant wrote this on page 18 of his Report and Recommendation :

“In sum, the undersigned finds that Metlife’s total disregard for Plaintiff’s LTD claim, despite his repeated efforts to call their attention to said claim, was arbitrary and capricious.”

It is obvious the fiduciary/administrators at MetLife have openly violated their fiduciary duties by having the attorneys at Adams and Reese present false statements in writing to the U.S. District Court where they wrote,

“Defendant’s deny that they ignored relevant medical evidence, refused to respond to properly submitted communications, improperly delayed consideration of the Plaintiff’s claim, made false statements, or violated the terms of the TMG plans or of ERISA”

MetLife and the Attorneys at Adams and Reese continued to assert these lies even after I filed the following quote in the U.S. District Court :

"the Plaintiff who has had cancer removed from his eye and leg and over 200 biopsies plus stitches in 100 places has no money for follow up treatment."